Intelligence Squared U.S. Debat

Available Episodes

of

Can Negotiations Denuclearize North Korea?

Motion: Negotiations Can Denuclearize North Korea Will all of the recent goodwill gestures between North and South Korea lead to the one thing Washington wants most? Can a deal be struck that denuclearizes North Korea? And what will they want in exchange for giving up that leverage? Presented in partnership with Georgetown University, LIVE at the first Georgetown University Women’s Forum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Is Bitcoin More Than A Bubble?

Motion: Bitcoin is More Than a Bubble and Here to Stay. Is Bitcoin here to stay, or is it a bubble waiting to pop? Less than a decade old, Bitcoin is worth billions. The cryptocurrency promises to revolutionize global finance by placing control of currency in the hands of users, not nations, and make financial exchanges more transparent, efficient, and democratic. And it seems to be taking hold: Earlier this year both the Cboe and CME debuted Bitcoin futures. But is Bitcoin really a safe bet? Proponents say the hype around the cryptocurrency is warranted, and previous critics – including executives at JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs – are increasingly jumping on the Bitcoin (block)train. On the other hand, skeptics suggest this highly volatile digital currency offers a platform for illicit activity, including money laundering and trafficking of humans and drugs, free from government oversight and regulation. And, they argue, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value – the price is based on market enthusiasm rather than actual utility. This debate is presented in partnership with the Adam Smith Society. The

Debate: Should Net Neutrality Be Saved?

Motion: Preserve Net Neutrality: All Data is Created Equal. What if a single policy could impact American democracy, culture, and competitiveness?&nbsp; What if that policy might either empower citizens and consumers, or burden them?&nbsp; And what if the decision on that policy sparked a frenzy of legislative proposals, judicial challenges, and citizen outrage, all across the country? The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to end net neutrality regulations has fueled a national debate about the future of the internet.&nbsp; Adopted in 2015, net neutrality promised to preserve the democratic spirit of the web by ensuring that all data would be treated equally, regardless of where it originated. Under these regulations, internet service providers (ISPs) such as Verizon, Comcast and AT&T, the corporate giants who deliver the internet into our homes, could supply web infrastructure, but could not preference how data passed through it.&nbsp; Denying them that power, supporters argue, remains critical to ensuring that users and content-creators can discover ideas and information without censorship, or charges, from these prospective gatekeepers.&nbsp; After all, no person should have to pay for every video streamed on YouTube; no startup should be hobbled against established companies who buy faster access to consumers; and no minority voice should have its ideas throttled by wealthier interests. On the other hand, net neutrality opponents argue that the genius of the Internet has been its individually driven, organic development, free from the heavy hand of so-called net neutrality.&nbsp; These burdensome regulations constitute dangerous governmental overreach, stifle innovation, and spike costs for both consumers and providers.&nbsp; The result, they maintain, will be a less interesting, less democratic, less innovative web.&nbsp; Moreover, Americans will enjoy uninterrupted access to their favorite sites – without net neutrality – because ISPs make more money from an open, rather than closed, internet.&nbsp; Consequently, the backlash against the FCC’s decision is overblown, and ending net neutrality is the right policy for the future of America’s internet. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

As We Evolve, Do We Need God Less?

Motion: The More We Evolve The Less We Need God. Does God have a place in 21st century human affairs? Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and cognitive neuroscientist Heather Berlin team up to argue for the motion, "The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God." On the other side is integrative medicine advocate Dr. Deepak Chopra and ER physician Dr. Anoop Kumar. To buy tickets to our live show in Chicago on April 17th, visit IQ2US.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Does Humanitarian Intervention Do More Harm Than Good?

Motion: Humanitarian Intervention Does More Harm than Good. The international community currently faces a global refugee crisis and mass atrocities in Iraq, Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. How should the West respond? Proponents of humanitarian intervention – the use of force to halt human rights abuses – argue that the world’s most powerful militaries have a responsibility to protect innocent civilians around the world. Beyond saving lives, they argue, intervention deters would-be abusers and ensures global stability, thereby strengthening the liberal world order. But opponents argue that military intervention is thinly veiled Western imperialism, and subsequently, an assault on state sovereignty. And, it’s ineffective: the West, with its military might, increases the death toll and worsens the conflicts it sets out to solve. Further, given recent waves of populism in the U.S., France, and U.K., they suggest that Western nations should spend their time looking inward rather than policing activity around the world.&nbsp; This debate is presented in partnership with The German Marshall Fund's Brussels Forum, broadcast live from Brussels, Belgium. The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God: http://smarturl.it/ReligionDebateTix Learn more about your ad choices. Visit